Graham, do you mean your query that works like RDF with blank bits? I presume
it is easy to map between similar syntax types (squish and algae look the
same to me) but is it easy to map from a "holey-RDF graph query to a
SQL-style one?
(You might be right about it being early to standardise, but it might be
intersting to think about whether that is true and not assume it).
cheers
Chaals
On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Libby Miller wrote:
>
>
>
>On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Graham Klyne wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I think it's too soon to be trying to eliminate diversity in
>> ("standardize") RDF queries. In practice, I think the various query
>> approaches can be mapped reasonably easily, so I don't think different
>> queries create unbridgeable islands. My own query mechanism ends up
>> reducing to an SQL-ish kind of approach.
>
>I'd agree with this Graham - there's a lot of similarity between
>many of the languages. Dan Brickley had some conversion scripts between
>squish and Algae for example (the nearest I can find is this:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Mar/0071.html)
>
>Libby
>
--
Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles tel: +61 409 134 136
SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe ------------ WAI http://www.w3.org/WAI
21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia fax(fr): +33 4 92 38 78 22
W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France